Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Kimi K3 (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 163 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 82 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #10 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) for the final draft, where a 163 Elo lead over the best DeepSeek setting is worth $0.362 a script.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) for daily drafting at $0.017 a script, since Kimi K3 (high) costs more and still ranks below it.
Kimi K3 wins this only at max. Kimi K3 (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 163 Elo, and the 95% ranges sit 82 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order. By best setting, that's the #10 model of 78 ahead of the #14 model. Drop Kimi to high and the lead is gone. Kimi K3 (high) ranks below DeepSeek's max setting, though those ranges overlap, and at the shared high level the two models sit 7 Elo apart. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) gets there for under a tenth of the price in less than half the time, so I wouldn't run Kimi at high here. Kimi at max is a real step, 225 Elo over its own high setting, and it buys the better script, a stronger hook than any DeepSeek setting and better visual cues. It also costs $0.362, about 21 times the DeepSeek max price, and takes close to ten minutes against under three. DeepSeek's max setting is the more consistent of the two from draft to draft. I'd use Kimi at max for the final script and DeepSeek at max for everything else.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Kimi K3 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3 (max) | 2203 | 2158 to 2243 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #20 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | 2040 | 1999 to 2076 | 81.0 | $0.017 | 2.4 min | 22,010 | #28 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1978 | 1936 to 2029 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #37 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) | 1971 | 1925 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.012 | 1.1 min | 13,809 | #38 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low) | 1856 | 1815 to 1906 | 79.3 | $0.0077 | 0.7 min | 6,740 | #46 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) | 1638 | 1588 to 1680 | 76.8 | $0.0037 | 0.3 min | 0 | #61 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Kimi K3 (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 163 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2158 to 2243 against 1999 to 2076), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Kimi K3 (high) at Elo 1978 and $0.128 per script leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) at Elo 1638 and $0.0037 per script by 340 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Kimi K3 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at max. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at Elo 2040 and $0.017 per script, is Kimi K3 (max), at Elo 2203 and $0.362 per script. It costs about 21 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +225 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash moves +402 Elo from no thinking to max, at about 4.6 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Kimi K3 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1978 | 1971 | +7 | Overlap |
| max | 2203 | 2040 | +163 | Separate |
Gap is Kimi K3 minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Kimi K3 (max) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Continuity & Emotion does the most to put Kimi K3 (max) ahead, with a 2.2-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Kimi K3 (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.30 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 79.7 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 82.4 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 2.7 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Kimi K3 (max) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 80.8 | +0.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 81.2 | +1.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 81.2 | +0.6 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 80.1 | 0.0 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 81.1 | +2.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 80.8 | +2.4 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 82.4 | +1.2 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 80.7 | +1.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 82.2 | +1.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 79.7 | +0.3 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons